Obama, at Arizona memorial service, says polarized nation needs healing

Will Obama express regret for having told supporters in 2008 that if they "bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" ? I think it is the least he could do. After having personally called the incompetent sheriff Dubnick and thanked him for dutifully playing the good old boy. Never miss an opportunity, "never let a crisis go to waste" as his Chicago mentors always say.

Hmmm....

I think that at that time Obama said "if". And I think he was talking about the way to respond to threats.

Do you think that Sarah Palin would have the courtesy to retract her statement that "...acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state..."? After all, she is a more or less ardent supporter of the wars we launched in Afghanistan and Iraq in response to the act of monstrous criminality in New York.

I think that the core issue of this matter is whether or not Americans are mature enough for democracy, whether they really do have the maturity to listen to someone's ideas, weigh them and respond to them without resorting to nonsensical counterarguments which indicate a visceral intolerance of other points of view and which, if unchecked, lead to or promote violence.

"Searching for the right tone, Obama sought to console the country, not dissect its politics."

SolidaryTea: We can always expect the same "tone" from you.

I see we have have the usual doublethink to start the thread. How dare people claim that political rhetoric played a role in the actions of a nutcase, now gets the follow up up of how Obama is at fault for using dangerous political rhetoric. It either is a problem or it isn't, it can't be both. By the way, 1984 was a novel, not a textbook.

I did enjoy seeing the useful idiot walk right into the punch though. She really should take the time to figure out who her enemies are. Hint, they aren't on the imaginary "American political left". We will see if she can get up, but if she does there will be many more punches to follow this year. She has outlived her usefulness.

I hope he gives a very respectful and eloquent speech. Those lost deserve nothing less.

And while you watch Obama, realize that he probably had 20-50 death threats... PLAUSIBLE death threats requiring investigation... today. Will he even mention them? Probably not.

If this guy had killed anyone BUT a judge and a congresswoman this would not even be a story. He would just be another nutter. That's all he is...another nutter. Why politicize it at all?

Another windy speech from Obama is about as interesting as filling out my 1040 form. Those who don't pay taxes won't know what I'm talking about.

RR

Moderator: Please do not use this thread to go off on another anti-Obama rant.

How dare people claim that political rhetoric

Unfortunately, many people are becoming or are already fed up. That can lead to some whacky behaviour. Politicians are doing very little to improve things and the sick and tired individuals on the edge feel that politicians should be held accountable. In fact, they should be held accountable.

Hmmmm. When I posted my previous comment, the article was about Obama delivering a memorial speech. Now it's about Obama visiting Giffords and others at the hospital.

I can't wait to see what the article is about in a few minutes.

Yes, I think politicians should be held accountable when they succumb to demagoguery instead of attending to the problems of the nation. However, the people elect the politicians.

The human animal is not essentially Platonic and it dislikes being governed by philosopher kings. Give it a good sophist every time. (For example, what was there in Reagan's record from 1980 to 1984 that justified his reelection by a landslide? He wasn't really a rational choice, but, boy, didn't he talk realll gooood!)

The human animal wants the surge of emotion. The surge empowers. And there is little emotional difference between the Nuremberg rally and Martin Luther King's speech, between "yes, we can" and "taking back America". Stripped of the rhetoric, the only thing left is content and the moral choices the content presents.

The human animal, collectively still rooted in tribalism, cannot be counted on to make good moral choices--regardless of religion.

To RoRa (I know this is a little unsportsmanlike after you got sacked by our vigilant moderator),

1040 form? Get yourself one of these new fangled "computing boxes" and you can file your taxes online. I see poor tax planning on your part. You could've pulled a Steinbrenner and gotten off with no estate taxes last year. Considering you sound old enough to remember the Yankees before the Steinbrenners...

TT

Yes, I think politicians should be held accountable when they succumb to demagoguery instead of attending to the problems of the nation. However, the people elect the politicians.

In other words the are being mislead and used. People elect with trust.

The people may be being misled. However, they are also misleading themselves. The fault does not lie exclusively with the politicians.

Thank God Obama is doing something decent. With some of the comments on the beginning on the thread I take it that people are criticizing SolidariTea for his comment on Obama. However if it were Palin who went to the hospital all here would be much more extreme in their comments against her and calling for her to retract her statements/comments of targeting places. The hypocrisy in the JT crowd is amazing even on threads like this. You go Obama. Bout time you did something decent for the citizens.

Oh look, the article has changed again!

Is it just me, or does this memorial seem more like an Obama pep rally?

"Wellstone" is now a verb.

GJDailleult - I did enjoy seeing the useful idiot walk right into the punch though. She really should take the time to figure out who her enemies are. Hint, they aren't on the imaginary "American political left". We will see if she can get up, but if she does there will be many more punches to follow this year. She has outlived her usefulness.

Tsk, tsk. Didn't you read what Obama said.........

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized — at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do — it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds,” the president said.

Maybe YOU should pause for a moment and make sure that you are talking with others in a way that heals and not in a way that wounds.

"polarized nation needs healing"

A good start would be for the Democrats to acknowledge mainstream America's wishes and give up their liberal agenda.

We will see if she can get up, but if she does there will be many more punches to follow this year. She has outlived her usefulness.

GJ - aren't you worried your violent rhetoric will cause massacres?

Just my own opinion, but I just watched it, and I believe there was a bit too much cheerleading going on. Not knocking anyone in particular, just think there was too many smiles for such an event.

Don't worry Sarah says we can do whatever we want. Politicians used to duel. Didn't you hear?

mikehuntez: "However if it were Palin who went to the hospital all here would be much more extreme in their comments against her and calling for her to retract her statements/comments of targeting places."

All you can do is speculate on such a matter, since palin did NOT go to the hospital, did she? I might have respected you a wee bit more if you just finished the comment where you started, but of course you had to counteract any slight praise for Obama with reasons why the 'American left' is somehow at fault here. Simply bizarre.

sarge: "A good start would be for the Democrats to acknowledge mainstream America's wishes and give up their liberal agenda."

And then there's sarge! turning a time of mourning and genuinely peaceful words into a personal vendetta against something he imagines and is paranoid about. What was the 'liberal agenda' here, sarge, because all I saw was a man saying the nation needs to heal -- it's YOU who brought politics into it. Tsk tsk.

sarge: "A good start would be for the Democrats to acknowledge mainstream America's wishes and give up their liberal agenda."

But if you really want to take a ceremony marking the massacre and make into your personal politics, I will slap you down, since you asked for it. It's funny you mention 'taking into account mainstream America's wishes', when in a recent news article it explained that more than 60% of Americans polled were against extending the tax cuts to the rich, but that Republicans made extending tax cuts to 3% of the American population their one and only goal in politics for quite some time now. But hey... how you wanna spin this, sarge, and blame it on Obama at a funeral where he talks about healing? You brought it up, so finish it.

Moderator: You won't slap anyone down and if you use such language again, we'll give you some time off.

it's YOU who brought politics into it." To be fair, the entire thing has been politicized

It is undeniable that "the crosshairs of a gun sight during last fall’s campaign" might have made the psycho to decide to shoot Gabrielle Giffords.

It is undeniable that "the crosshairs of a gun sight during last fall’s campaign" might have made the psycho to decide to shoot Gabrielle Giffords

What kwatt said is meaninngless,like saying: It is undeniable that something might have caused something.

Well, the difference between the two persons who spoke today became further and clearer. One for self defense and self victimization whilst the other for healing and betterment.

"One for self defense and self victimization"

Heh, she's good at that.

"One for self defense and self victimization"

Heh, folks...just a reminder

She was a VICE presidential candidate on a LOSING ticket.

@sarge:

A good start would be for the Democrats to acknowledge mainstream America's wishes and give up their liberal agenda.

"Healing" doesn't necessarily entail anybody giving up their ideals or agendas, whether conservative or liberal. You make it sound like the Democrats took over the nation by putsch. I hate to tell you this, but there are many many millions of American citizens who share a liberal agenda (and it's not a dirty word) with their democratically elected president. Healing just means stopping the childish namecalling, fearmongering, hysteria, and exaggeration that has taken over political discourse in America.

Get a grip, America.

I agree polarized means TWO opposite ends. One end demanding that the other stops will not reestablish the balance.

What he meant was that EVERYBODY needs to look at themselves and find where they went wrong and get back on track to be a good citizen.

From the quotes of Obamas speech in the article it appears he just delivered a watered-down replay of the liberal media narrative. So he still presents this shooting as an extension of political debate -- of course from there, it is just a small step to call for restrictions of free speech, "fairness doctrine" and the rest of the political playbook.

But all that is irrelevant to this incident by deranged individual. From all we know, he was not listening either political party.

So disappointing to see that up the highest level, the liberal politicians try to make political hay out of a sad incident.

the liberal politicians try to make political hay out of a sad incident.

@WilliB: Now, if you were president, what would you say or do in this situation? Would you stay in bed and pretend the nation wasn't shocked? Or would you address the situation? If the latter, how would your address proceed? Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States, Willi B!

Should he pretend he doesn't follow the news? Should he not follow the news, like GWB?

We are waiting WilliB. What would you have said? Don't repeat the dear Sarah, who as a mother of a young girl, could have chose to talk about the 9 year old girl who got killed but chose to lecture us about herself and her selective history/memory

I believe we can be better

WilliB, how much partisanship do you find in the word "we"? Is it so hard to swallow reasonableness?

So disappointing to see that up the highest level, the liberal politicians try to make political hay out of a sad incident.

Had President Obama felt it was a higher priority to attend a partisan fund-raising event as Republican Speaker Boehner did last evening, the so-called "conservatives" would have been all over his case about it.

The Palin speech was a total embarrassment. Her use of the term "blood libel" was particularly damaging to the spirit and tone that our president has tried tirelessly to encourage.

Yabits:

" The Palin speech was a total embarrassment. Her use of the term "blood libel" was particularly damaging to the spirit and tone that our president has tried tirelessly to encourage. "

Actually, I saw the Palin speech I found excellent. This is what Obama should have said, actually. If he had style, he would have called on his goon sympathizers and told them to stop abusing this tragedy for cheap political gain.

"Blood libel" is, alas, exactly correct. That is what the liberal media have been doing from the start, by trying to drag Sara Palin into this. Reprehensible! And now they continue this by attacking her for defending herself. How low can they sink?

I did not read the whole Obama speech, so maybe it is better than the snippets in the JT article show.

Had President Obama felt it was a higher priority to attend a partisan fund-raising event as Republican Speaker Boehner did last evening, the so-called "conservatives" would have been all over his case about it.

@yabits, just take a look at how this memorial service was "branded" (the Together We Thrive) Blue & White bumper stickers and T-shirts that were passed out, and then tell me about a partisan event.

What I find most distasteful was that at the event, you had people hooping and yelling at the speeches as if they were at some rally. It was supposed to be a memorial, not some political event.

Funny how at the 9-11 memorial event held at the National Cathederal in D.C. when all of the dignitaries and persons were there, there was a somber mood more reflective of a memorial event, and not some staged political rally that we just saw.

I saw many of the same political "hacks" who were for boycotting AZ and for their illegal immigration bill glad to be there now.

That is what the liberal media have been doing from the start, by trying to drag Sara Palin into this. Reprehensible!

It was noted by the media, liberal and otherwise, how angry many of the supporters of the "out-party" and Tea Party were at President Obama for attempting to govern as a Democrat, on the platform he ran and was elected for. One such party member spoke of "Second amendment remedies" to the problems of losing elections, echoing Tim McVeigh's citation of tree of liberty requiring the blood of "patriots."

Compared to a couple of highly dubious examples given, this kind of violence-endorsing rhetoric is a staple on one side. Even Roger Ailes had to advise his staff of flame-throwers to "cool it."

Recalling some of Palin's words has nothing to do with "blood libel." This is yet again the deluded view of those who see themselves as constant victims of some nebulous "liberal conspiracy."

What I find most distasteful was that at the event, you had people hooping and yelling at the speeches as if they were at some rally.

Yes, Phony sanctimoniousness appears to be your stock in trade.

One just couldn't help but fault people for cheering when they heard the encouraging news about Representative Giffords.

Comparing the event to the memorial service for 9/11 goes beyond even profound ignorance. It's sad that differences would have to be pointed out to some.

Let's all wish for a full recovery for Ms. Giffords.

Obama's speech was good in that it paid respect, tried to encourage and avoided partisan politics of pretty much any sort. While I applaud the call to "civilize" political discourse I'm not hopeful. If you look at the history of politics you'll see that the kind of vile lies and calls to bad behaviour goes all the way back through Roman times and probably through Egyptian history too. So fingers crossed but I'm not holding my breath.

I am hopeful that Ms. Giffords will make a good recovery and even goes back to Washington.

I'm very far from being a fan of the President, and usually at odds with the liberals on here. But I have to disagree; I thought the President did an ample job of speaking to a national sadness at such a tragedy, and correct in summary that as a nation that is supposed to be 'one, united in overall belief and cause' has let itself devolve into nothing short of acting like unruly children fighting on a playground. While many point to the cheering and at some points almost jubilation amongst the attendees, I rather liked that tone. Some see a funeral as a celebration of life rather than a mouring of death, or some combination of both. I think in this case, in such an event that proved so tragic and costly, it was a way of healing; of celebrating the spirit of those who were murdered and the brave woman fighting for her life. Forget that she's a democrat for party matters not - she's a bright and vibrant human being and the fact that she could live and recover from such an onslaught tends to make the human spirit jubilant. Sorry, don't mean to sound philosophical as I'm far from the wise sage.

Having said that, while I think the President seemed quite genuine in his speech, he has been a key player in the divide that has become so turbulent. His disdain for those on the right has hardly been concealed and the forcing through of unpopular legislation hardly a salve. And the venom that still flies on here (and will after my comments) is a testimonial that despite the mouth-play it will not end so easily. Frankly, and sadly, I think the old days of flag waving and pulling together for common cause (the Second World War a prime example) are long gone, and as such the dichotomy and the strong emotions caused by the rift in political philosophies is only going to get worse.

But put it all in perspective. The shooter was a sick man likely suffering from schizophrenia and quite delusional. It might have been politics that set him off, but it could have just as easily been a belief that his neighbors were space aliens coming to get him. Mental illness is just that, trying to assign a rational reasoning and thus condemning political rhetoric seems rather silly.

Recalling some of Palin's words has nothing to do with "blood libel." This is yet again the deluded view of those who see themselves as constant victims of some nebulous "liberal conspiracy."

So, a group of people on the left attack those on the right, claiming that this violent act by a lone nutcase, is caused by speech on the right. That to me is what Blood Libel means. Claiming that political speech by your opposition, be they on the left or right, is the cause of blood being spilled is despicable. Whats even worse is that Palin has received plenty of death threats, and now there are people, not surprisingly on the left, who are saying she should be assassinated. This is what those on the left are after? They want the right to tone down their language, but apparently are perfectly willing to continue their own violent rhetoric. None of which had anything to do with Giffords being shot, and 6 people being murdered. And even if it had, Palin nor any other politician ought to be held accountable for the actions of the lone nut who did this act.

'' And what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other'' Hi WilliB, find out who made the above quote among the two speakers

Obama is right -we need to put these despicable acts by an drugged-out ex-Lib aside and use this opportunity to come together to fight the criminal banksters that have been defrauding the American populace to the tune of trillions a year. Then we can reduce government and find people real jobs that do not involve groping (TSA).

We do need healing. But Obama won't be the transformational figure that accomplished that healing, contrary to what his fans all imagine. Congress can't 'heal' us. It's up to the people, to individuals and their communities. Get the feckless spendthrift tin-eared guv out of the picture. let Americ be America.

Most calm and rational people on the left and right have refrained from assigning culpability to anyone, while at the same time lamenting the level of discourse on the extremes.

The "blood libel" claim by Palin does nothing to improve the discourse and demonstrates that everything is about her. She could not even be bothered to mention the victims by name, or identify with the parents of the 9 year old girl. Obama did what a real leader does - as Bush, Clinton and Reagan have all done after national tragedies - and that is to speak to the moment and to the grief and represent all Americans. Palin represented herself.

As for the tone that Brit Hume and others have complained about, well I guess they have to decide if they want to live in a free country or not. The memorial was, of course, arranged in haste with over 14,000 people in attendance. I suppose their could have been some announcement to refrain from cheering or being "inappropriate", but then Hume and others would be howling about "Big Brother" government infringing on the rights and freedoms of Americans. If I was there, I would not be hooting and hollering, but that's me and I was not there. Saturday seems like a long time ago, but it was almost yesterday and the need to be emotional is understandable. I certainly wouldn't criticize Obama for the free release of emotions.

So, a group of people on the left attack those on the right, claiming that this violent act by a lone nutcase, is caused by speech on the right.

As when Harry Truman said something akin to "I just tell the truth and they think it's hell...," people across the spectrum have noted the numerous, documented examples of rhetoric with overtones of gun-violence and the right wing perceives that it is under attack.

That to me is what Blood Libel means

There is a traditional meaning and usage of the term "blood libel," and Palin's gross ignorance in choosing that term is matched only by the arrogance of those who defend her choice of words.

Whats even worse is that Palin has received plenty of death threats...

There is no evidence of this, beyond the claims of Palin's self-serving entourage. What we know is that neither the FBI nor any other law enforcement agency has been contacted to investigate any of the alleged "threats." That in itself speaks volumes.

On the other hand, we read how the FBI has arrested a man for allegedly threatening Washington congressman Jim McDermott. A good contrast between what is real and what is illusion.

"She could not even be bothered to mention the victims by name, or identify with the parents of the 9 year old girl. Obama did what a real leader does - as Bush, Clinton and Reagan have all done after national tragedies - and that is to speak to the moment and to the grief and represent all Americans. Palin represented herself."

Palin is not an elected official.

Sarah palin is a private citizen.

There are conservatives like me who would also like to see her sort of disappear. So why go on about What Sarah Just Did ? Blaming her just creates more buzz and hype.

True enough Palin is not an elected official, but she aspires to be taken seriously as a leader - elected or not. But to take your point that she is a "private citizen", then why on God's green earth would she decide that the morning of the memorial would be the best time for her ill-conceived video? Tasteless, crass, and self-serving... though I am no fan of the GOP - the leadership knew when to sheath the rhetorical swords so that all who wanted could focus on the tragedy in Tucson and mourn with those who mourn.

And I am not blaming her for the shooting in Tucson, I'm just disgusted by her actions.

And I am not blaming her for the shooting in Tucson, I'm just disgusted by her actions.

I believe that it's important to point out that the man who targeted Representative Giffords had been stalking her for some time. And that Representative Giffords herself went on record with her concerns about the gun-related symbols along with the message "Time to take a stand" on Palin's political action website. Gifford's concerns seem prophetic now.

Also, we have another Republican Congressman's staff-member saying, a matter of a few months ago, "If ballots don't work, bullets will." Again, very prophetic.

One just couldn't help but fault people for cheering when they heard the encouraging news about Representative Giffords.

@yabits: I have no problem with that, since I actively go to a lively Baptist church and used to that kind of stuff.

What is not appropiate, is having bumper stickers and T-shirts made for the event. As someone earlier pointed out it was hastily arranged, but they did have time to get the media blitz for it. Also, some of the booing for AZ Gov. Brewer was not appropiate.

I applaud the efforts to memoralize the victims, but I don't think it should have been a chance to make a bunch of political statements and agendas. I imagine that LA mayor Tony Villarosa was there. The same guy who said LA would boycott AZ for their anti-illegal immigration bill, but sees a chance to get a publicity shot and he was there.

What is not appropiate, is having bumper stickers and T-shirts made for the event.

That has nothing to do with President Obama. None of his people ordered that.

I imagine that LA mayor Tony Villarosa was there.

Imagination being the source for a majority of your points.

People should do a search on Anthony Miller, one of four Arizona Republicans who have recently resigned, citing fear of Tea Party violence as the reason.

Earlier in the day, Republican Sarah Palin, criticized by some for marking Giffords’ district with the crosshairs of a gun sight during last fall’s campaign, had taken to Facebook to accuse pundits and journalists of using the attack to incite hatred and violence.

Let me get this straight: Palin is actually claiming that "pundits and journalists" are trying to incite violence? How is it that the words of those who do not support the far right wing can somehow incite violence, while out of the other sides of their collective mouths completely deny that none of the far right wing's rhetoric could not have done the same?

In her speech, she actually claimed that when the far right wing talks of "taking up arms," they actually mean "voting." (Quote from her video: "As I said, while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, I said we know violence isn’t the answer, when we take up our arms, we’re talking about our vote.") That clearly does not square with the comments of other Republicans, like the one who specifically mentioned "second amendment remedies" and "If ballots don't work, then bullets will."

Lastly, the "blood libel" accusation was used by people to justify violence done to others. Palin is showing her true colors when she warns us that journalists seeking accountability for her use of words are "inciting" violence.

yabits:

" Let me get this straight: Palin is actually claiming that "pundits and journalists" are trying to incite violence? "

By using this sad incident to spew virulent rethoric against their political opponents and dragging Palin into this with their blood libel, they can only inflame any divisons, by angering their opponents and riling up their believers.

Palin is spot on with this, alas.

The cynicism that now she is being lambasted for DEFENDING herself against the uncalled for attacks is mind-boggling. Even I would not have believed that liberal media would stoop that low.

That has nothing to do with President Obama. None of his people ordered that.

@yabits: You seem to contridict yourself with every post. Did you even see or listen to the memorial service. If not let me help you. The first speaker was a professor from the Univ, who introduced himself as being a "Mexican on his mother's side, one of the original inhabitants of the valley (or so)" which garnered him rounds of applause (and not the applause for the Congresswoman's condition).

If that doesn't seem to smack of "Never let a good crisis go to waste (Rahm Emanuel), I don't know what does. I give Obama credit, he tried to at least tow the rational line and make it too much of a one sided event, but if you keep associating the people on the far right fringe who may be a bit extreme with the entire Tea Party, then you need to man up and admit that the left is just as bad. Using a memorial service to pass out T-shirts and bumper stickers. I have never seen such a service with such crass opportunism.

So answer that, and please don't go off on a tangent and try to bring up something else.

I imagine that LA mayor Tony Villarosa was there.

I admit my mistake on that one.

By using this sad incident to spew virulent rethoric against their political opponents and dragging Palin into this

It was noted that Representative Giffords "dragged" Palin into this by pointing out the virulent rhetoric and symbols on Palin's political action site. The rhetoric stayed up long after the November election and was only removed after the Saturday shooting.

The far right wing believes that Palin is beyond any reasonable criticism. Her explanation that to "take up arms" means "to vote" is completely dishonest.

The first speaker was a professor from the Univ, who introduced himself as being a "Mexican on his mother's side, one of the original inhabitants of the valley (or so)" which garnered him rounds of applause

Wow. A speaker gets introduced and receives applause. How inappropriate.

but if you keep associating the people on the far right fringe who may be a bit extreme with the entire Tea Party...

I never associated the far-right fringe, who are extreme by definition, with the entire Tea Party. Your assertion is just another by-product of an over-active imagination.

then you need to man up and admit that the left is just as bad

It was not the left that drove Anthony Miller and several others in Arizona to resign from their posts. It was violent threats from some Tea Party members. Additionally, being a moderate liberal, I do not attempt to speak for or justify the radical left, such as they might be.

"Mexican on his mother's side, one of the original inhabitants of the valley (or so)"

OK, what does this have to do with the shooting?

Wow. A speaker gets introduced and receives applause. How inappropriate.

@yabits, you need to take the time to listen to the speech. A speaker introducing himself, talking about the heritage of his parents, and the oppression they faced in the 1800's is probably a good speech to give at an immigration rally; but to make those points at a somber service as a memorial for victims who were shot by some lunatic is not.

So I suggest, go back, listen to the speech, and tell me you think that is the right time and right place for such a thing. Then sit back and consider, if this was a truly non-partisan event, words like that wouldn't have been spoken, and the "crowd" that was present wouldn't have been shipped in. I imagine they just changed from the purple shirt crowd to the Blue shirt crowd.

I will give Obama credit, at least he took a forward stance on this issue, unlike the past tragedies where he has been slow to response.

"Mexican on his mother's side, one of the original inhabitants of the valley (or so)" ... OK, what does this have to do with the shooting?

Ohh, it's a statement against the anti-illegal immigration measures. I'd call that "politicized".

yabits:

One just couldn't help but fault people for cheering when they heard the encouraging news about Representative Giffords.

But that's not the only time people applauded, was it? No, as you admitted later:

Wow. A speaker gets introduced and receives applause. How inappropriate.

At a memorial service? A local professor? Yes, I do think that is inappropriate. Why would one applaud a professor speaking at a memorial service?

There is no evidence of this, beyond the claims of Palin's self-serving entourage. What we know is that neither the FBI nor any other law enforcement agency has been contacted to investigate any of the alleged "threats." That in itself speaks volumes.

Do you really know that? And just how do you know that? What about the posts on her FB page, and the collection of tweets posted on YouTube?

I believe that it's important to point out that the man who targeted Representative Giffords had been stalking her for some time. And that Representative Giffords herself went on record with her concerns about the gun-related symbols along with the message "Time to take a stand" on Palin's political action website.

"Some time", as in at least since 2007, before Palin was known beyond Alaska. She didn't notice the DailyKos campaign ad with the bullseye symbols on her district that was running at the same time? Are you suggesting that "Time to take a stand" is supposed to be a call for violence? Seriously?

Also, we have another Republican Congressman's staff-member saying, a matter of a few months ago, "If ballots don't work, bullets will." Again, very prophetic.

Staff member. Wow.

That has nothing to do with President Obama. None of his people ordered that.

I guess none of his people bused in the folks from Chicanos Unidos Arizona either. Sure. Nor did any of his people put a stop to it.

Let me get this straight: Palin is actually claiming that "pundits and journalists" are trying to incite violence? How is it that the words of those who do not support the far right wing can somehow incite violence, while out of the other sides of their collective mouths completely deny that none of the far right wing's rhetoric could not have done the same?

There is no evidence whatsoever that the lunatic shooter paid any attention to Palin. In fact, according to people who actually knew him, he didn't even watch the news. And "those who do not support the far right wing" most certainly can incite violence, and have been doing so since the beginning of politics. It has been very well documented since the 30's especially.

like the one who specifically mentioned "second amendment remedies"

Mentioned, yes. Supported, no. In fact, she specifically said that she didn't want that to happen

And "those who do not support the far right wing" most certainly can incite violence, and have been doing so since the beginning of politics.

How is it possible that a journalist who doesn't support the far right wing could incite violence (as asserted by Palin)? Would not resorting to violence and attempting to justify it prove the journalist's point?

Staff member. Wow.

Staff members represent their employers to the public. He was speaking on the record in his role on behalf of his office and not as a private citizen, and his employer-Congressman never disavowed the words. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that his views represent the congressman's.

It seems rather odd that folks like yourself will criticise someone speaking out for immigrant rights while at the same time defend, deny, or dismiss the suggestion or outright endorsement of violence against fellow Americans who don't agree with their views.

What about the posts on her FB page, and the collection of tweets posted on YouTube?

Since the beginning of time, reactionary types -- i.e. the far right wing -- have acted as agents-provocateurs in order to justify their own feelings of victimhood and resorting to a violent response. If the FBI were actually following a genuine threat against Palin, her camp would be the first to point that out. (Yes, that's right: hardcore supporters of Palin are making those tweets and posts in order to give their side a leg to stand on. Remaining completely anonymous, they have everything to gain politically, and absolutely nothing to lose.)

Note how the Secret Service reported a large spike in the threats against then-candidate Obama and his family after Palin's rallies in which she accused him of "pal-ling around with terrorists" -- inciting cries of "Terrorist" and "Kill Him!" from the crowd cheering her on.

The far right wants things both ways: to malign the left as a bunch of non-violent, gun-hating, weak, peacenik, Kumbaya-singing tree-huggers AND, when it suits their purposes, to portray them as more prone to violence than the the far right is. Those sorts of mental backflips are characteristic of right-wing "thinking" [sic].

Another sad example which shows why the nation so much needs healing:

Mark Demoss, the evangelical conservative founder of "The Civility Project," has recently disbanded the effort, citing constant and virulent attacks from the right wing as his main reason.

I realize that the mere citing of this fact could incite a far right winger to more violence, but that is just how we'll have to play it in Palin's America.

The far right wants things both ways: to malign the left as a bunch of non-violent, gun-hating, weak, peacenik, Kumbaya-singing tree-huggers AND, when it suits their purposes, to portray them as more prone to violence than the the far right is

Ummm..The left called her an accessory to murder and reveled in it after this...Your thoughts?

yabits - Wow. A speaker gets introduced and receives applause. How inappropriate.

If it's at a MEMORIAL service, then yes, it's inappropriate.

If it was at an OBAMA CAMPAIGN RALLY..... Oh, wait a minute, it was handled as an Obama Campaign rally. Never mind.

The left called her an accessory to murder and reveled in it after this...

I don't know who exactly it is you are referring to when you say "the left." Nobody here or that I've read or that I know of has made those remarks. And I don't understand why some of the people who have defended Palin's remarks appear to support her stand that violence could be a justifiable response to such rhetoric.

It seems more than a little ironic that Representative Giffords went public months ago citing Palin's website as one displaying symbols which suggest gun-violence -- and which bore in tone a resemblance to websites which targeted abortion doctors. The far right wing appear to present themselves as experts on what will incite people to violence, and it appears that some of the crazy individuals they have inspired are operating on a hair-trigger.

If it's at a MEMORIAL service, then yes, it's inappropriate.

I do not believe you are the final authority on what is or isn't appropriate at all memorial services, as much as you would like to con yourself into believing.

The far right wants things both ways: to malign the left as a bunch of non-violent, gun-hating, weak, peacenik, Kumbaya-singing tree-huggers AND, when it suits their purposes, to portray them as more prone to violence than the the far right is. Those sorts of mental backflips are characteristic of right-wing "thinking" [sic].

Sorry, but its the left that has that image. The right realizes that while there are those on the left that are that way, when they come accross those who disagree with them, they become violent. Thats just the way this works. Too many examples of left wing violence. Vile slurs and threats on Daily Kos and HuffPost, and then there are SEIU thugs... When you have someone get right up in your face and threaten you, you stop thinking people are paranoid, and realize, the left is a violent movement.

When you have someone get right up in your face and threaten you, you stop thinking people are paranoid, and realize, the left is a violent movement.

Yet another person who decries this nebulous "left," hoping, I guess, to build up the justification to wage violence on anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I know of know moderate/liberal/Democrat who posts "threats" on DailyKos or Huffington Post, since doing so would immediately disqualify them from being considered such. I have not seen any representative of the Democratic Party using rhetoric suggestive of violence such as "second-amendment resolution" or "if ballots don't work, then bullets will."

But we've experienced the co-leader carrying the Republican Party banner levelling the charge that her opponent "pals around with terrorists," prompting her supporters in the crowd to yell out "Kill him!" in a kind of lynch-mob frenzy.

There is such hatred in the hearts of so many who need healing that they would so falsely inflate an event that never happened the way they claim and accuse others of thuggishness. Where are the genuine conservatives who are willing to meet President Obama halfway, in a spirit of goodwill?

"the right realizes that while there are those on the left that are that way, when they come accross those who disagree with them, they become violent. Thats just the way this works."

What a stupid thing to say.

"the right realizes that while there are those on the left that are that way, when they come accross those who disagree with them, they become violent. Thats just the way this works."

What a stupid thing to say.

I agree. That's the worst statement I've ever 'seen'(heard) in my life.

yabits - I do not believe you are the final authority on what is or isn't appropriate at all memorial services, as much as you would like to con yourself into believing.

I'm the final authority on what I believe is appropriate at a MEMORIAL service. Your mourners can pass out T-shirts and balloons if they want to. They could also play calliope music. The MEMORIAL T-shirts are for sale on ebay.

This entire service should have been a respective occasion to the shooting victims only but it turned into a pep rally for Obama.

Conducting dignified memorials is not in the democrats' DNA.

A really sad day for America in more ways than one.

RR

(Yes, that's right: hardcore supporters of Palin are making those tweets and posts in order to give their side a leg to stand on. Remaining completely anonymous, they have everything to gain politically, and absolutely nothing to lose.)

Ah, the old Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. I'm pretty sure the FBI can find out who posts tweets and such.

The far right wants things both ways: to malign the left as a bunch of non-violent, gun-hating, weak, peacenik, Kumbaya-singing tree-huggers AND, when it suits their purposes, to portray them as more prone to violence than the the far right is.

I've never portrayed the Left as non-violent. Weak on national security and defense, yes. But non-violent? What with the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, the New Black Panthers, the Earth Liberation Front, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the SIEU, just to name a few, I don't see where the Left can be accused of being non-violent.

And I don't understand why some of the people who have defended Palin's remarks appear to support her stand that violence could be a justifiable response to such rhetoric.

Where did she say "violence could be a justifiable response to such rhetoric"? Exactly when did she take that stand?

But we've experienced the co-leader carrying the Republican Party banner levelling the charge that her opponent "pals around with terrorists," prompting her supporters in the crowd to yell out "Kill him!" in a kind of lynch-mob frenzy.

William Ayers indeed was a terrorist. "Guilty as heel, free as a bird. What a country." Remember that? When asked if he regretted setting bombs and killing people, he said "I feel we didn't do enough." Remember that? Not only did Ayers support Obama from the beginning, six Weather Underground members worked for an Obama campaign group. And at no time has Obama renounced Ayers or disowned him. He did that to Jeremiah Wright when he became inconvenient, but not Ayers.

I'm pretty sure the FBI can find out who posts tweets and such.

Yes, and they would have arrested at least one such poster by now, as many as there allegedly are. What they need is someone to bring a formal complaint to them. And yet we read nothing about it. It's much more convenient to pretend that one is a victim of mythical attacks.

What with the Weather Underground [LOL!], the Black Panthers[LOL!], the New Black Panthers, the Earth Liberation Front, the Symbionese Liberation Army[ROFL!], and the SIEU[!?!?!?], just to name a few, I don't see where the Left can be accused of being non-violent.

Thank you for the laugh. What do any of those groups have to do with liberal Democratic politics? I understand the deep-seated need by those on the right who want to paint everyone with the same brush so as to justify endorsing the use of violent retribution against "enemies" of America, but really...

Where did she say "violence could be a justifiable response to such rhetoric"? Exactly when did she take that stand?

You jest, right? Certainly you understand English, right?

Palin made excuses and allowances for violence when she said, "In an ideal world, all discourse would be civil and all disagreements, cordial." This, right after her little course through history when our founding fathers often settled their disagreements through violence. She is excusing the lack of civility -- on her side's part obviously -- as something to be expected. And ordinary, civil discourse becomes somehow utopian and unreachable in HER mind, and the recourse to violence quite natural and understandable, based on historical precedent. (I believe that civil discourse -- intelligent, civil discourse -- may indeed be unreachable for her and her followers.)

Anyone who suggests that journalists can incite violence by the right-wingers as Palin does is merely attempting to build a logical justification for it, if and when it comes to pass. Anyone who lives in a world where the Symbionese Liberation Army is somehow tied to Democratic politics would understandably fail to see any of this.

And at no time has Obama renounced Ayers or disowned him.

In the eyes of the American justice system, Ayers is a free citizen. Those who put themselves above the laws may feel otherwise.

Not renouncing or disowning someone is vastly different from "pal'ling" around with them. Pal'ling around with terrorists implies being in close personal contact with people who are actively committing or endorsing violent acts against innocent people. That is yet another example of the polarizing rhetoric used by Palin and others that is so hurting the United States.

Yabits,

The far right wing appear to present themselves as experts on what will incite people to violence, and it appears that some of the crazy individuals they have inspired are operating on a hair-trigger.

I see your not buying Palin's “I Didn’t Beam Homicidal Mind Control Rays into that Crazed Gunman’s Brain" lame defense.

I know of know moderate/liberal/Democrat who posts "threats" on DailyKos or Huffington Post, since doing so would immediately disqualify them from being considered such. I have not seen any representative of the Democratic Party using rhetoric suggestive of violence such as "second-amendment resolution" or "if ballots don't work, then bullets will."

You don't think leaders in the Dem party don't say things like this? Obama himself was said, if they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun. Or that guy who was caught out over this issue, decrying violence, while saying that the governor of Florida should be die. No, there are plenty of examples, all the way up to Obama, of much worse statements, and even more examples of actual violence by those on the left. Contrast this with those on the right? Palin saying we should target these districts comes close to assaulting people, or saying they should be assassinated? Sure, there are those on the right that are nuts, but from the level of rhetoric, the hate and the violence seems to be almost entirely on the left.

I know of know moderate/liberal/Democrat who posts "threats" on DailyKos or Huffington Post, since doing so would immediately disqualify them from being considered such. I

Alan Grayson did and still does post 'diaries' on DailyKos.So does Keith Olbermann.

In the eyes of the American justice system, Ayers is a free citizen

Ayers is a criminal, and was a fugitive from justice. He has openly praised ppl like Loughner.His book Praire Fire was DEDICATED to RFK's killer, Sirhan Sirhan.

His book?

At least four people penned that long forgotten manifesto.

Nothing like changing your facts to suit the days agenda, neh old buddy?

You don't think leaders in the Dem party don't say things like this?

No.

Obama himself was said, if they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun.

Two points: 1) The key words are "if" and "knife." 2) The statement stands out as the ONE TIME that then-candidate used such rhetoric on the campaign trail. He was speaking to Philadelphians who, to anyone is familiar with the place, pride themselves on being rough and tumble. By contrast, Sarah Palin can barely utter two sentences in a row without some allusion to blood or gunplay.

No, there are plenty of examples.

Which you can't provide since they're mainly in your imagination.

but from the level of rhetoric, the hate and the violence seems to be almost entirely on the left

Some people can delude themselves into believing anything they want to. The rest of us must deal with actual facts. Roger Ailes had to tell his staff of flame-throwers to "cool it."

Alan Grayson did and still does post 'diaries' on DailyKos.So does Keith Olbermann.

And an intelligent, honest person would follow that statement with examples of threats of violence against their political opponents. Something akin to "if ballots don't work, then bullets will." This is a vastly different kind of comment than someone saying they'll bring a gun if their opponent brings a knife. Bullets in response to ballots clearly asserts a violent response to a non-violent exercise of democracy. Ditto "second amendment remedies" in response to election results that don't go the way of the Tea Party.

These polarizing remarks from the Republican side suggestive of violence are legion -- almost routine. "Locked and loaded." "Don't retreat; reload." "I want my constituents armed and dangerous."

And, in their deluded minds, when they perceive that the nation has been taken over by a terrorist-befriending, socialist, American-hating, Moslem, Afro-centric, Kenyan tribesman, such violent rhetoric naturally flows as par for the course.

Two points: 1) The key words are "if" and "knife." 2) The statement stands out as the ONE TIME that then-candidate used such rhetoric on the campaign trail. He was speaking to Philadelphians who, to anyone is familiar with the place, pride themselves on being rough and tumble. By contrast, Sarah Palin can barely utter two sentences in a row without some allusion to blood or gunplay.

Justification, and a pathetic attempt at that. Particularly when you include the 2 last sentences, and remember that Palin is from Alaska.

These polarizing remarks from the Republican side suggestive of violence are legion -- almost routine. "Locked and loaded." "Don't retreat; reload." "I want my constituents armed and dangerous."

Yabits, you can't win this arguement. Everything you claim Palin and Co have done, people on the left have done worse, and more. There are too many examples, not just of heated rhetoric, or allusions to the 2nd amendment, but real violence, as well as leaders suggesting actual violence. You can keep trying to defend them, but you've already lost the argument.

Everything you claim Palin and Co have done, people on the left have done worse,

There is not a shred of evidence that liberals and liberal Democrats have done worse. What people who consider themselves "mainstream conservatives" are doing, in fact, is attempting to compare their rhetoric with the very worst on the far fringes of the left. (As someone did by bringing up the Symbionese Liberation Army -- LOL!) By so doing, they have given up any semblance of moral high ground in the argument and have ended up losing it completely.

and remember that Palin is from Alaska.

Being from Alaska does not excuse the use of the term "blood libel" and making the suggestion that journalists reporting the obvious facts are attempting to "incite" violence in the far right wing that Palin represents. People in the crowds cheering on Palin during the campaign were heard to shout "kill him!" when she referred to Barack Obama and accused him of being a bosom buddy of terrorists.

There is nothing remotely comparable coming from rallies of Democrats and liberals. None of the examples put forward to this point remotely compares. Where is the example of any violent "threats" posted by Grayson or Olbermann?

Can it be that the people most prone to feeling themselves victims and warning that they are being incited to violence are the same people who resort to the making false accusations? The evidence clearly supports that.

Thank you for the laugh. What do any of those groups have to do with liberal Democratic politics?

Quite a bit. You did see the part where six members of the Weather Underground worked on an Obama campaign group, right? And where the New Black Panthers got a pass for voter intimidation by a Democrat AG even thought they were caught on videotape, right? And you did see where Obama-supporting SEIU members beat up Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative at a town hall meeting, right? You've not blocking these facts from entering your conscious awareness, are you?

And ordinary, civil discourse becomes somehow utopian and unreachable in HER mind, and the recourse to violence quite natural and understandable, based on historical precedent.

And in YOUR mind, we either have civil discourse or violence, and there's nothing in between. Wow. You need to stop seeing everything in black and white, and open your mind to shades of gray. Or maybe you need to read some of the uncivil posting on the Democratic Underground site.

Anyone who lives in a world where the Symbionese Liberation Army is somehow tied to Democratic politics would understandably fail to see any of this.

Well, you and several other Leftists are trying to tie Lougner's actions to Palin and the Tea Party. The difference is, the SLA (and the WU, NBP, ELF, SEIU) and the DNC are on the same side of the political spectrum. The NBP, ELF and SEIU specifically work (violently, I might add) to further DNC policies and goals. Who does that on the right?

In the eyes of the American justice system, Ayers is a free citizen.

So is O.J. Simpson. The difference, Ayers admits his guilt.

That is yet another example of the polarizing rhetoric used by Palin and others that is so hurting the United States.

President Obama referred to Republicans as the enemy. That's not polarizing?

Which you can't provide since they're mainly in your imagination.

There is not a shred of evidence that liberals and liberal Democrats have done worse.

He has provided examples, as have others. But you nuance and parse your comrades to innocence, then parse and nuance the right into guilt. It's second nature to you, like a defensive coping mechanism.

There is nothing remotely comparable coming from rallies of Democrats and liberals.

You're quite right. Republicans don't riot at G20 meetings. I don't remember any Republicans being arrested for conspiring to bomb a Democrat convention (2008).

But then you probably don't consider Democrat Congressman Paul Kanjorski saying Florida Governor Rick Scott should be shot as violent rhetoric. “Put him against the wall and shoot him.”

Yabits,

There is not a shred of evidence that liberals and liberal Democrats have done worse.

I call hanging Palin in effigy was a lot worse.

Google Japan Today Palin Effigy and you will find the article that was posted here below.

Effigy of hanging Palin prompts visit from feds

Wednesday 29th October, 03:50 PM JST

WEST HOLLYWOOD, California —

Chad Morrisette never imagined his Halloween yard decorations would prompt interest from the Secret Service.

But apparently hanging a mannequin of Republican vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin from a noose is not something to be ignored.

Your comments on the thread defended this as totally appropriate and free to do so.

Your comment was:

One of the main points is that the displays were done by the owners on their own private property. If someone wanted to hang an effigy of ANY candidate as a stunt, and not as a threat, on their own property, and it doesn't violate any contracts or covenents they might have signed, they should be perfectly free to do so. And it should not matter if it's Obama or Biden or McCain or Palin.

I take it now your position has changed on this?

I call hanging Palin in effigy was a lot worse.

Don't forget all the times that Bush was hanged or burned in effigy at left-wing protests. I wonder if yabits will counter that by bringing up the posters of Obama as Hitler. Of course, it was okay when the Left gave Bush the same treatment... ;)

You did see the part where six members of the Weather Underground worked on an Obama campaign group, right?

You can't be seriously suggesting that these people still maintain the values and goals of the Weather Underground. It speaks well of the liberal democratic process that those formerly in favor of violent change have long renounced those views (by their words and actions) and become part of the process for peaceful change.

The Tea Party is FAR more in the meanstream of right-wing, conservative politics than the Weather Underground, Black Panthers, or SLA was ever tied to liberal Democratic politics -- by an exponential magnitude. It's rather pathetic that people have to be so dishonest as to try to portray that otherwise.

And where the New Black Panthers got a pass for voter intimidation by a Democrat AG even thought they were caught on videotape, right?

I do not know the facts of this case, but I certainly can't accept the views of someone whose credibility is so low as a result of trying to portray groups like the SLA and Weather Underground as somehow being representative of liberal Democratic politics.

And you did see where Obama-supporting SEIU members beat up Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative at a town hall meeting, right?

This case I am familiar with. On the video of the incident, Gladney is shown standing up and talking without a scratch on him. Portraying the incident, which lasted less than 15 seconds, as anything more than a scuffle -- with an SEIU member on the ground underneath Gladney -- is not being honest. This is clearly part of a pattern of an utter lack of presenting the facts accurately that has become the standard story from those on the far right wing.

you and several other Leftists are trying to tie Lougner's actions to Palin and the Tea Party.

To put it accurately: First, I don't consider myself a "leftist." My politics are of the liberal/democratic tradition. I understand the great need by those on the far right wing to portray all liberal Democrats as "leftists." It's simply part of a general pattern of misinformation.

Secondly, I happen to agree with Sarah Palin -- and I think she was revealing something without intending it -- that a journalist writing about events can incite violence. We have all witnessed the anger and violent rhetoric coming so predominantly from the Tea Party/right wing. The shouts of "Kill him!!" from the Palin rallies. Violence can be incited, especially in those already prone to violence.

So, Palin herself admits the possibility that Loughner could have been incited and encouraged by the violent rhetoric of the opponents of Giffords. I happen to agree with her.

Republicans don't riot at G20 meetings

Neither do liberal Democrats. Oh, I forgot...You want to present people on the far left who do as somehow being representative of mainstream liberal democrats. This is done to provide cover for the overtones and outright direct references to violence made among the Republicans. From wanting constituents "armed and dangerous" -- a direct quote from a Republican congresswoman, to a resorting to "bullets" if ballots don't turn out the correct results.

comment was:

One of the main points is that the displays were done by the owners on their own private property. If someone wanted to hang an effigy of ANY candidate as a stunt, and not as a threat, on their own property, and it doesn't violate any contracts or covenents they might have signed, they should be perfectly free to do so. And it should not matter if it's Obama or Biden or McCain or Palin.

I take it now your position has changed on this?

Not one iota. You are obviously confused about the rights of a private citizen to express their views with agreement as to how those views are being expressed. Hanging someone in effigy is an action of an extremist which could be far left or far right, and not of a mainstream liberal democrat or conservative.

No rhetoric spouted by a Democratic candidate ever led anyone in a crowd of Democratic supporters to yell "KILL HIM!" about a Republican opponent. Not, at least, in the last 100 years. No Democrat has said he wants his supporters "armed and dangerous."

Don't forget all the times that Bush was hanged or burned in effigy at left-wing protests

In all the democratic rallies I have ever attended, I have never seen nor witnessed even the suggestion that a political opponent be hanged in effigy. I do know that if some individual made such a suggestion, he would be treated with disgust by myself and others.

And so I have to wonder why people on the far right who attempt to portray such acts as being indicative of mainstream liberal Democrats believe they can get away with such misrepresenations.

On Monday, people in the USA will observe the holiday honoring the life of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. -- a man who worked tirelessly and gave his life in the cause of healing a polarized nation.

It would serve us well to remember that during his short life, he was constantly attacked, hounded, and branded as a "communist" and "socialist" by Americans on the right side of the political spectrum -- much as President Obama is maligned now. The state where President Obama recently spoke was just about the last one to recognize and honor Reverend King -- and made an example of its defiance against a great American.

Ummm....

Not one iota. You are obviously confused about the rights of a private citizen to express their views with agreement as to how those views are being expressed. Hanging someone in effigy is an action of an extremist which could be far left or far right, and not of a mainstream liberal democrat or conservative.

No offense...I sorta get get throwing a rope against a guy neck thing

yabits - This case I am familiar with. On the video of the incident, Gladney is shown standing up and talking without a scratch on him. Portraying the incident, which lasted less than 15 seconds, as anything more than a scuffle -- with an SEIU member on the ground underneath Gladney -- is not being honest. This is clearly part of a pattern of an utter lack of presenting the facts accurately that has become the standard story from those on the far right wing.

The police report doesn't agree with you. I'm shocked. (Not.) Obama supporters have a well established history of violence against people who disagree with them. Here are just a few:

In August of 2009, a black man selling gasden flags at a townhall event is called racial names and beaten by 4 SIEU members (Obama supporters) because "he is un-american" and a Black Conservative.

In Sept 2009, an Obama supporter bit the finger off 65 year old, anti-Obama, supporter at a Moveon.org rally in Thousand Oaks, California.

In March 2010, 35 supporters of U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) from IBEW local 357 were video taped throwing eggs at the Tea Party Express bus. They also threatened the reporter for recording their violent actions.

March 2010, Obama supporter Norman LeBoon was arrested for making death threats against Congressman Eric Canto (R-VA).

April 2010, an Obama supporter and crashtheteaparty.org creator said they had over 65 leaders in major cities across the country trying to recruit members to infiltrate tea party events for April 15, 2010 with the intention of making racial statements and carrying nazi signs in the hopes that the actions would be attributed to actual Tea Party supporters.

That's a fun bunch you've decided to defend.

You can't be seriously suggesting that these people still maintain the values and goals of the Weather Underground.

You have proof they don't? For example, I'm still waiting for Ayers to renounce his ways.

The Tea Party is FAR more in the meanstream of right-wing, conservative politics than the Weather Underground, Black Panthers, or SLA was ever tied to liberal Democratic politics -- by an exponential magnitude. It's rather pathetic that people have to be so dishonest as to try to portray that otherwise.

So? What is the Tea Party's history of violence? Did a Tea Party activist bite the finger off of someone he was arguing with? No, just the opposite. Besides, who are members of the Weather Underground, Black Panthers, New Black Panthers, Earth Liberation Front, SEIU, Symbionese Liberation Army, et.c, going to vote for ? Republicans? Tea Party candidates? No, it would be the same party and the same people mainstream Democrats vote for. Why? Because their priorities and goals align almost perfectly. How on earth you can deny the blatantly obvious is... I can't even say it here.

It's amusing how you're trying to set different standards of evidence for your side of the political aisle and mine. I suspect that for you, only an official order on official White House stationary signed by Obama in his own DNA-matching blood will be sufficient evidence for you of the connection between left-wing Democrats and left-wing belligerents. But you already consider the Tea Party to be violent, even though there hasn't been a single incidence of violence. Jonah Goldberg recently wrote in his column (Where the media leads, we don't follow) about just such a mindset.

I do not know the facts of this case, but I certainly can't accept the views of someone whose credibility is so low...

"I don't know the facts, but I know you're wrong." Great attitude. How could you not know about this? It was in the news... oh wait, it probably wasn't covered by your favorite pathologically-biased news sources.

Two members of the New Black Panthers stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia in during the 2008 election, one of them brandishing a "billy club", and intimidated voters. Which is illegal. Do you seriously believe that they were there to intimidate voters into voting for McCain/Palin? Or to intimidate voters into voting their conscience? Seriously?

This case I am familiar with. On the video of the incident, Gladney is shown standing up and talking without a scratch on him.

Do you have a link for that video? Because the one I saw was too dark to make anything out. Or it could have been my monitor. In any case, I was in an accident once where I didn't have a scratch on me - except for a broken leg. I was standing up and talking afterwards too, but I still had to go to the hospital and get treated for my broken leg. Gladney had to be treated at a hospital too, didn't he?

To put it accurately: First, I don't consider myself a "leftist." My politics are of the liberal/democratic tradition. I understand the great need by those on the far right wing to portray all liberal Democrats as "leftists." It's simply part of a general pattern of misinformation.

Of course you don't consider yourself a Leftist. Who does? Please remind me of the times when you've posted anything remotely centrist, or even right-of-center. And how far back does your "liberal/democratic tradition" run? Back to JFK? Or just Carter?

Not all liberal Democrats are Leftists. Giffords is an example of that. But the far Left is running the Democrat party these days. Dean, Pelosi, Obama... Reid is the only national Democrat leader who can come close to claiming the "moderate" or "traditional" Democrat label.

Violence can be incited, especially in those already prone to violence.

As the Left has a history of proving. I'm still waiting for your examples of Tea Party violence.

In all the democratic rallies I have ever attended, I have never seen nor witnessed even the suggestion that a political opponent be hanged in effigy.

So if it doesn't happen in front of your very eyes, it has never happened. Perhaps you should open your eyes then. I just did a Bing search for "Bush burned in effigy" and got 106,000 results. That doesn't mean it happened 106,000 times in eight years, but it does mean that it happened and has been covered.

You should visit Zombietime. Lots of coverage on there about Leftist, liberal-Democrat and DNC events in San Francisco on there. They all have an uncanny similarity...

"It would serve us well to remember that during his short life, he (meaning Martin Luther King) was constantly attacked, hounded, and branded as a "communist" and "socialist" by Americans on the right side of the political spectrum -"

The Martin Luther King I remember faced his worst slander from Democrats. Adam Clayton Powell, an African American Democrat from NY threatened to go public with knowledge he claimed indicated King was a homosexual. Powell was determined to make King stop criticizing the Democratic Party. That is about as low as a politician can go.

Obama seems to have forgotten that it was HIS party that divided America in the first place. The Democrat party is the mechanic that puts sand in your gas tank and then offers to repair your car when the engine blows up.

It's amusing how you're trying to set different standards of evidence for your side of the political aisle and mine.

What is amusing is how, when examples of Republican/Tea Party violent rhetoric are brought up -- examples directly taken from those sources -- the counter-examples offered are from groups like the Weather Underground, SLA and Black Panthers. I'd call that a very different set of standards.

And how far back does your "liberal/democratic tradition" run?

One can find its roots some of the ideas of Woodrow Wilson and the anti-trust, anti-monopoly progressive views of Teddy Roosevelt. The ideas attained much greater force with FDR and the New Deal. They are the ideas and policies that helped build the great American middle-class.

I'm still waiting for your examples of Tea Party violence.

LOL! There are plenty of examples of violent rhetoric. The picture of the Tea Party candidate's troup in Alaska jack-booting a young girl's head on a curb takes the prize.

Back to JFK?

JFK and Carter were both New Deal Democrats. Obama gets called a socialist for proposing a health care plan nearly identical to the one proposed by Bob Dole during his 1996 campaign. The end-of-life counseling proposed by a Republican senator gets jumped on by the right-wingers and turned into "death-panels" as soon as Democrats agree to support it.

What this indicates is that the far right wing has become so unhinged that they couldn't tell a centrist view from a leftist one -- that's how far they are out there.

yabits - There are plenty of examples of violent rhetoric. The picture of the Tea Party candidate's troup in Alaska jack-booting a young girl's head on a curb takes the prize.

Hahahaha. That wasn't Alaska and the "young girl" (in her early 30's) turned out to be a paid aggitator who had worked for Greenpeace. She had been photographed one month earlier spray painting obsenities on a fishing boat. The "young girl" had struck a Tea Party candidate with her sign and people in the crowd pushed her to the ground and held her there for the police.

That wasn't Alaska and the "young girl" (in her early 30's) turned out to be a paid aggitator

That's right, it was one of Rand Paul's entourage who curb-stomped the young woman. That the Tea Party could so easily be "aggitated" to violence by a wisp of a woman speaks volumes.

The Alaskan was the one whose troup illegally hand-cuffed a journalist for asking questions.

yabits - That's right, it was one of Rand Paul's entourage who curb-stomped the young woman. That the Tea Party could so easily be "aggitated" to violence by a wisp of a woman speaks volumes.

So you "condone" the paid violent agents of MoveOn but "condemn" the people who restrained her for the police. She was paid to commit violence, commited violence and was caught.

you "condone" the paid violent agents of MoveOn but "condemn" the people who restrained her for the police. She was paid to commit violence, commited violence and was caught.

Anyone who didn't condone lying could not refer to the young woman as a "paid violent agent." What was captured on video went beyond simple restraint. She was already fully and completely restrained when one of the Tea Party thugs curb-stomped her.

I realize that Tea Party supporters will do anything and say anything in an attempt to distort the reality of what happened, but there is nothing that justifies the violence of the Rand Paul supporter caught in the act of being himself.

yabits - Anyone who didn't condone lying could not refer to the young woman as a "paid violent agent." What was captured on video went beyond simple restraint. She was already fully and completely restrained when one of the Tea Party thugs curb-stomped her.

Her name is Lauren Valle and she was an employee of MoveOn when she attacked Rand Paul. She’s a professional leftist activist who had just been arrested in May when she worked for Greenpeace.

You "condone" the paid violent agents of MoveOn but "condemn" the people who restrained her for the police. She was paid to commit violence, commited violence and was caught.

and the "young girl" (in her early 30's)

Lauren Valle was 23 at the time of the incident.

The "young girl" had struck a Tea Party candidate with her sign

Her sign was a standard cardboard sign, which she can be seen holding in the video that shows her being curb-stomped by a Tea Party thug.

She was paid to commit violence

You changed your story from her being paid to "aggitate," which she was. She's strictly committed to non-violence -- unlike those who support the obvious violence of curb-stomping a restrained young woman of 23.

Hahahaha. She was PAID by the Obama-supporting MoveOn to aggitate. She was PAID to commit violence. The fact is she attacked a political candidate just as she was PAID to do. She was captured and restrained. It bothers you that whe was caught but you'll just have to learn to live with that. I notice that no Obama-supporter bit her finger off and SEIU thugs didn't beat her senseless as they are prone to do.

It bothers you that whe was caught but you'll just have to learn to live with that.

The things that decent Americans have to learn to live with in our polarized nation are that the facts that a young girl of 23, committed to non-violence and holding nothing more than a small cardboard sign with a message to show a candidate, are distorted to the false claims that she presented a "threat" -- and something that justifies violently curb-stomping her after she was already restrained.

The things that the violence-endorsing factions among the American right must learn to live with is that they won't be able to fool many more people much longer.

yabits:

What is amusing is how, when examples of Republican/Tea Party violent rhetoric are brought up -- examples directly taken from those sources -- the counter-examples offered are from groups like the Weather Underground, SLA and Black Panthers. I'd call that a very different set of standards.

Your lone example "violent rhetoric" at a GOP event is a candidate mentioning the FACT that a DNC candidate has a political history with an admitted domestic terrorist. Your lone example of Tea Party "violence" is the restraining of a violent left-wing protester.

I have made the case that left-wing groups such as Weather Underground, the (New) Black Panthers, the SEIU and others not only share goals and ideals (and sometimes members) with the DNC, they act as de facto support groups for the DNC. You have not made a substantive argument to counter that. I have also asked you which groups on the right do they same for the GOP, and you have no answer.

Obama gets called a socialist for proposing a health care plan nearly identical to the one proposed by Bob Dole during his 1996 campaign.

Did the Republican elect Bob Dole? No? Fascinating.

Anyone who didn't condone lying could not refer to the young woman as a "paid violent agent." What was captured on video went beyond simple restraint. She was already fully and completely restrained when one of the Tea Party thugs curb-stomped her.

Apparently, you're again being selective with which videos you'll watch: v=yiLeud-sxrM

The picture of the Tea Party candidate's troup in Alaska jack-booting a young girl's head on a curb takes the prize.

At no time did anyone step on her head. v=SbnEy_U9pYk

Lauren Valle was 23 at the time of the incident.

a young girl of 23

No such thing. Admittedly, in the world of the Left, a 23-year-old is still considered a "child" (such as the Left's rhetoric about "Bush sending your children off to die"), but on the right, a 23-year-old is an adult fully responsible for their actions.

Her sign was a standard cardboard sign, which she can be seen holding in the video that shows her being curb-stomped by a Tea Party thug.

Which she used to strike Rand Paul, as seen in the first video.

She's strictly committed to non-violence --

No, apparently not.

I see you have no answers or counters for my other questions and points. I'll take that to mean you concede on those points.

One of the things that is most in need of healing is the ability of people to portray things honestly. It is very clear that there are polarizing forces in America which simply are unable to do that. For example:

Your lone example "violent rhetoric" at a GOP event is a candidate mentioning the FACT that a DNC candidate has a political history with an admitted domestic terrorist.

The polarizing divide in this statement is the gulf between "political history" and "pal-ling around with" a current, active terrorist. The violent rhetoric which suggested that candidate Obama is bosom buddies with active, violent terrorists is as irresponsible as it is untrue.

That those among Palin's supporters were inspired to yell out "kill him!" is every bit as terroristic as the worst of a Black Panther rally.

Your lone example of Tea Party "violence" is the restraining of a violent left-wing protester.

The young woman was in no way violent. She had a small cardboard sign with a message on it. That a 23 year-old girl with a sign is considered some kind of threat by the big, bad right-wingers speaks volumes about them.

they act as de facto support groups for the DNC

This is completely untrue. The DNC has nothing to do with them.

he Republican elect Bob Dole?

Yes they did. At their convention in 1996, they elected him to lead their party in the national elections. Dole, whose health care proposal was a near-exact replica of President Obama's. It's simple things like this that some conservatives can't relate truthfully and accurately that is responsible for the vast majority of the polarization.

At no time did anyone step on her head.

Technically, the bottom of the Tea Party thug's foot was on the base of her neck. By virtue of the fact that the girl's head happened to be connected to her neck, pushing down on the neck necessarily forced her head down against the curb. On such technicalities do the defenders of Tea Party violence seek to justify themselves.

Which she used to strike Rand Paul, as seen in the first video

The only thing the "first video" shows is an attempt to show the sign to the candidate as he's arriving in his car -- not any attempt to "strike" him with it. That the act of trying to "strike" someone with a small cardboard sign is dubious at best, there can be no doubt about the violence involved in curb-stomping her after she's been restrained.

The people who defend such actions would, understandably, resort to all manner of distortions and fabrications to attempt to justify their acts. This kind of stuff is what is most in need of healing.

The NY tiimes has publicly aploligized for trying to politicize the tragedy in Arizona and use it to demonize conservatives. I expect their leftwing readership will eventually be able to do the same.

The polarizing divide in this statement is the gulf between "political history" and "pal-ling around with" a current, active terrorist.

So you don't deny that a presidential candidate had a political history with a domestic terrorist? I asked you before to show where Ayers renounced his terrorist ways. You haven't provided anything.

That those among Palin's supporters were inspired to yell out "kill him!" is every bit as terroristic as the worst of a Black Panther rally.

Nope. The Tea Party hasn't beaten, shot or killed anyone. The Black Panthers did.

The young woman was in no way violent.

She struck Rand Paul in the face with her "small" cardboard sign.

That a 23 year-old girl with a sign is considered some kind of threat by the big, bad right-wingers speaks volumes about them.

It speaks volumes about your double standards. There was no way to know that she was going to stop at hitting Paul with her sign. There was no way to know she wasn't armed, like the 22-year-old "boy" was last week. Your Monday-morning quarterbacking is as worthless as it is desperate.

This is completely untrue. The DNC has nothing to do with them.

Other than sharing ideals, goals, and sometimes members with them.

Technically, the bottom of the Tea Party thug's foot was on the base of her neck. By virtue of the fact that the girl's head happened to be connected to her neck, pushing down on the neck necessarily forced her head down against the curb.

Man, that's some desperate stretching. It would be funny, except you believe every word of it. Watch the video again. She was already on the ground, her head was not forced against the curb.

By the way, I do not condone the actions of the person who put his foot on her shoulder. She was already sufficiently restrained, although he might not have realized it at that time.

The only thing the "first video" shows is an attempt to show the sign to the candidate as he's arriving in his car -- not any attempt to "strike" him with it.

But strike him she did, intentionally or not.

And you're still deflecting. I see you have no answers or counters for my other questions and points. I'll take that to mean you concede on those points.

SolidariTea:

The NY tiimes has publicly aploligized for trying to politicize the tragedy in Arizona and use it to demonize conservatives. I expect their leftwing readership will eventually be able to do the same.

Don't hold your breath.

Speaking of the NYT, a recent article (Looking Behind the Mug-Shot Grin), noted that Loughner's "anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush".

So you don't deny that a presidential candidate had a political history with a domestic terrorist? I asked you before to show where Ayers renounced his terrorist ways. You haven't provided anything.

By "political history" can be meant almost anything, including the two people were once in the same room together and seen talking. The main point should not be lost: For a Republican candidate to go in front of a crowd and lie about the nature of the relationship in order to inflame her audience is irresponsible as well as deeply polarizing.

struck Rand Paul in the face with her "small" cardboard sign.

the video does not show that. Only that she was fumbling at trying to position it where he could see it. The motions of someone trying to hit someone intentionally with a small cardboard sign would appear differently. Sad that the supporters of curb-stomping a harmless and restrained young woman of 23 have to resort to this kind of misrepresentation of what the video so obviously shows.

She was already sufficiently restrained, although he might not have realized it at that time.

the action by the Tea Party supporter was not a restraining one. Putting one's foot down on the lower neck of a restrained person and pushing down so that their head gets pressed against the curb with greater force is nothing less than a punishing blow intended to harm.

I see you have no answers or counters for my other questions and points.

I will be glad to respond to any point or question posed within a single, on-topic post.

Don't hold your breath.

Expecially since the report of the NYT "apologizing" is a complete fabrication -- one that you bought without questioning. That an individual's viewpoint is printed in the opinion pages, it does not equate to an apology from the editors.

This is another example that underlines my points that the right wing can't relate events accurately, and engages in continuous twisting and distorting.

By "political history" can be meant almost anything, including the two people were once in the same room together and seen talking.

Um, no. That is false, not to mention a ridiculous idea to float or use as a defense. I doubt even Robert Gibbs would go that far.

Of course, if you insist on using that line of thought (can't rightly call it logic or reasoning), I can tuck that bit of info away and use it against one of your arguments in the future. We'll see how valid you think it is when the political tables are turned the other way.

Only that she was fumbling at trying to position it where he could see it. The motions of someone trying to hit someone intentionally with a small cardboard sign would appear differently.

... perhaps to someone with the luxury of watching it over and over in slow motion on YouTube. But to the people on the scene, at that moment, they saw a person swinging a sizable object at the head of another human being. You can second-guess all you want, but it's pointless.

Putting one's foot down on the lower neck

Lower neck? First you said "head", now you say "lower neck". How many more posts before you admit that it was the shoulder?

I will be glad to respond to any point or question posed within a single, on-topic post.

Then why haven't you?

Expecially since the report of the NYT "apologizing" is a complete fabrication -- one that you bought without questioning. That an individual's viewpoint is printed in the opinion pages, it does not equate to an apology from the editors.

Where did I say I "bought it"? SolidariTea didn't mention the name of the article, much less provide a link, so how could I read it? My comment was exactly as it would appear to a reasonable person: Don't hold your breath. Waiting for left-wing forum hacks to apologize for politicizing a tragedy and using it to demonize conservatives would be like waiting for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to renounce Islam and become a rabbi.

That is false, not to mention a ridiculous idea to float or use as a defense.

There is nothing at all false about it. The truth would come from an accurate representation of the nature of Barack Obama's involvement with Ayers. Anything less is a polarizing distortion. It is a total distortion that the two ever "pal-led around." Palin's utter misrepresentation of the relationship, which you have tried to further blur as "political history" was designed to engender the same hatred towards then-Senator Obama as Americans have towards terrorism. This is what needs healing, as well as the many apologists for demagoguery and distortion.

First you said "head", now you say "lower neck"

Nowhwere did I say that the Rand/TeaParty supporter's foot was on Valle's head. The video clearly shows it to be on the lower part of her neck. Force applied there certainly brought her head against the curb with greater pressure.

And so we are again witness to the kind of polarizing distortion where the statement of "pal-ling around with terrorists" gets turned into "political history" and a writer feels compelled to quibble that the position of the foot as being somehow of significant importance as the act of pushing someone's head harder against a curb.

This willingness to imply that someone is lying or distorting over a details such as "upper back" or "lower neck" is precisely what needs healing. Especially when contrasted with the massive distortion that Senator Obama "Pal-led around" with someone who is actively involved in terrorism.

Waiting for left-wing forum hacks to apologize for politicizing a tragedy and using it to demonize conservatives

Agein, you mention exactly that which needs healing: the idea that pointing out obvious distortions in a story is the same thing as "demonizing" the people who are distorting.

I believe it can be safely said that when Palin asserted that Senator Obama "pals around with terrorists," to the point where it led to cries of "kill him!" and a spike in death threats against the candidate -- that the action is a much clearer example of demonization than anything put against the opposition by President Obama and his people.

My hope is that the opponents of President Obama and those who hold liberal principles would take a vow to hold to the truth. There is no excuse to resort to lies just because you feel the opposition lies more.

yabits - The young woman was in no way violent. She had a small cardboard sign with a message on it. That a 23 year-old girl with a sign is considered some kind of threat by the big, bad right-wingers speaks volumes about them.

Hahahaha, you're a hoot. The ONLY reason she was there was because she was PAID to be there. MoveOn, which is the paid, public relations arm of the DNC, paid her and several others like her, to attend the various Tea Parties and cause as much disruption as possible. She appeared in disguise because the FBI knows who she is. She attacked a political candidate because she was PAID to do so. She was captured before she could escape. She knew the risk she was taking because she is a professional aggitator. That's what she does for a living.

And you're whining that she got a little dirt on her shoulder.

Agein, you mention exactly that which needs healing: the idea that pointing out obvious distortions in a story is the same thing as "demonizing" the people who are distorting.

Ever look in the mirror?

I believe

You have made it sufficiently clear that you're going to believe whatever you want, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. You downplay Kenneth Gladney's injuries, then turn around and exaggerate Lauren Valle's treatment. You link the Tea Party and the GOP, but refuse to ignore the connection between violent left-wing groups and the DNC, despite their decades-long history of common goals, ideals, donors and supporters.

My hope is that the opponents of President Obama and those who hold liberal principles would take a vow to hold to the truth.

My hope is that President Obama and the members of his administration and cabinet start telling the truth. Then - maybe - their sycophantic enablers in the media and on forums will follow suit.

Looks like it's gonna be a looooong wait.

arrestpaul:

She appeared in disguise because the FBI knows who she is.

Oh, but she's just an innocent little girl! A child!

;)

I don't know how many of you watched this "memorial" but as Rush Limbaugh put it best, it was Obama the egotist putting the "ME" in "Memorial." This event, held in the basketball arena at the U of A, was filled for the most part with college students making all kinds of noise with the whistling, cheering and hooping and hollering. It was absurd and nothing more than the beginning of Obama's 2012 reelection campaign. Frankly, it made me sick to see this administration use this horrific event for political purposes. If I was a relative of a victim, I would have been angry as h**l and would have given them an earful. How dare they use the death of an innocent person to push their agenda. There was no dignity, no respect for the deceased. And I have to add that the reading from the Bible by Eric Holder and one other person, I think it was Napolitano, was sickening. Couldn't they have invited a priest, pastor or rabbi to do that?

Reports and photos are all over the blog-sphere showing Obama's hair grey for the somber memorial ("wise healer", you are supposed to think) and then a much darker black sheen for the pep rally that came after ("youthful, vigorous leader who will vanquish the mean Rethugs!"). And ppl laugh at Palin?